Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Sithri wrote:
Your definition of metaphysical as that which cannot be explained through cause-and-effect is pertinent to the space-time continuum that is used to anchor the 'geometry' that GRT requires. There is no way of proving or disproving the metaphysical space-time-continuum that GRT requires, and there is not a single shred of evidence that SRT has been proven with time-dilation or length-contraction.

I suppose it depends on how one defines the term "evidence" and the specific aspect of GR that we're discussing. The bending of light around massive objects enjoys some amount of evidence and support since Eddington first "tested" that concept during an eclipse. If plasma is bending the light, why would it always bend it inward around an object rather than bending things in a more random pattern due to local conditions in the plasma?

In terms of time dilation, many spacecraft experiments seem to confirm the idea:

I'm not sure of this, but wouldn't we see bending of electrons' masses around an object with gravitationally strong amounts of mass with Newton's Law? Perhaps Newton's law and the mass of the electron would predict bending of light around an object if we consider that h, Planck's constant, which has the mass of an electron, which quantifies the photon's energy when multiplied by the photon's frequency, instead of a massless photon, could account for the bending of light around an object?

Michael Mozina wrote:

And if you read my writing called "Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT" in the section of this forum called "The Future of Science" you will see reasons for discounting the two theories. I'd enjoy discussion on that subject and to see if I'm right in my understanding of SRT and GRT.

I'll have to take a look at it when I get time. Thanks for the suggestion. Once I've read it maybe I'll have a better handle on your objections to GR.

Note however that the recent failure of the LCDM model to correctly anticipate the redsift of more distant objects is entirely based on the LCDM model and the LCDM interpretation of photon redshift. LCDM failed that test, but not necessarily due to a failure in GR itself, rather it failed because of their interpretation of redshift as an effect of space expansion. I would classify the concept of "Space expansion" as a metaphysical optional "add on" to a GR formula, but GR is not dependent upon space expansion, just the LCDM model.

My original point is that GR is not incompatible with the EU/PC model of cosmology, even if the LCDM cosmology model *is* incompatible with EU/PC theory. The problem with LCDM isn't so much the inclusion of GR, it's the *misuse* of GR.

General Relativity predicts black holes which are a flaw in mathematics. In General Relativity there are only one mass in the entire universe, if I'm not mistaken in my understanding of GRT. When using two masses they have to rely upon a mathematical magic trick of identity in mathematics with Newton's law of gravity.

I implore you to check out my thread "Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT" in the section of this forum called "The Future of Science"

In low-temperature plasmas, the specific emission mechanism and the evolvement of the continuum and isolated lines are quite complex, which are described in detail. The calculations from the Stark-broadening measurement of individual lines show the density to be of the order of magnitude of 1018 cm−3. It is seen that the redshifts of spectral lines detected in this experiment are influenced by the electron density. A possible reason for this is given.

From the PDF (see next post)

This is the reason for the redshift:

The recombination radiation is a free–bound radiative
transition effect. During this course, a free electron
combines with an ion into a certain bound state.
Meanwhile, the excess energy being carried away by a
photon is irradiated in the form of electromagnetic wave.

In normal words:
The light is captured by the free electrons and re-emitted.
But during a small time the electrons are in a higher energy state,
and moving through space.
And while the electrons move, they lose energy.
This causes light to be re-emitted at a slightly lower energy-level and frequency.

More free electrons give more redshift

Preliminary analysis indicates that, when the electron
density increases, the difference of the atomic energy
levels is reduced, and then the redshift is raised

Sithri wrote:
I'm not sure of this, but wouldn't we see bending of electrons' masses around an object with gravitationally strong amounts of mass with Newton's Law? Perhaps Newton's law and the mass of the electron would predict bending of light around an object if we consider that h, Planck's constant, which has the mass of an electron, which quantifies the photon's energy when multiplied by the photon's frequency, instead of a massless photon, could account for the bending of light around an object?

In that scenario you're equating the energy of the photon with mass which brings us back to GR. You could be correct of course.

General Relativity predicts black holes which are a flaw in mathematics.

FYI, Einstein actually rejected the notion of point like singularities. While GR does predict massively heavy objects, it doesn't necessarily predict point like objects known as black holes. I would say that there is ample evidence of massively heavy objects in the cores of galaxies, but that doesn't mean they are infinitely dense 'point' like objects.

In General Relativity there are only one mass in the entire universe, if I'm not mistaken in my understanding of GRT.

I would say that you are actually mistaken on that point.

I will indeed read through your threads as I get time, but I would caution you about making too many assumptions about GR. In my experience mainstream astronomers intentionally try to ride the coattails of GR when they are really describing metaphysical add-ons and optional beliefs that have nothing to do with GR as Einstein taught it to his own students. It's therefore very difficult to understand where GR ends and LCDM theory begins. You might checkout Einstein's 1939 paper where he rejects black holes. It's been my experience that mainstream astronomers intentionally mislead their students by falsely asserting that GR predicts point like objects, and that Hubble "proved the universe is expanding' even though Hubble personally rejected that idea. They do the same thing to Alfven with respect to "magnetic reconnection" when Alfven referred to as "pseudoscience". The mainstream engage themselves in a lot of misrepresentations of historical facts.

Like I said yesterday, I'd really prefer that this thread not deevolve into a debate about GR theory. It's really not the fault of GR theory that the mainstream chose to "interpret" redshift as "space expansion" + inflation + dark nonsense. Space expansion is entirely optional in GR, just like dark energy and just like magic unicorns and space gnomes.

I think the mainstream does their best to intentionally confuse the difference between GR theory and LCMD theory so they can unethically try to ride the coattails of Einstein, Hubble and Alfven, all the while peddling concepts that none of them actually believed in. That unethical rewriting of history causes a lot of confusion and it tarnishes the historical records associated with these individuals and the theories that they are credited with. Einstein rejected black holes. Alfven rejected magnetic reconnection. While Hubble didn't reject an expansion concept entirely, he did prefer a tired light explanation for redshift. Don't take my word for it. Fire up Google and check it out.

FYI, thanks Z for your relevant links on Chen's work on plasma redshift. I wish I'd seen that PDF link a few years ago before I shelled out good money to buy that particular paper.

Sithri wrote:
I'm not sure of this, but wouldn't we see bending of electrons' masses around an object with gravitationally strong amounts of mass with Newton's Law? Perhaps Newton's law and the mass of the electron would predict bending of light around an object if we consider that h, Planck's constant, which has the mass of an electron, which quantifies the photon's energy when multiplied by the photon's frequency, instead of a massless photon, could account for the bending of light around an object?

In that scenario you're equating the energy of the photon with mass which brings us back to GR. You could be correct of course.

There is no equivalence of mass and energy. There is frequency multiplied by angular momentum or h, which makes for energy. If I multiply h by the quantum frequency, I get E=mc^2. However, this doesn't mean that energy is mass just as much as E=mv^2 means it through multiplying by velocity squared. Just because E=mc^2 has c as the velocity doesn't mean that mass=energy. If we are to make mass=energy then we need an equation that literally states E=m, which would involve Making c=1 which a magic trick to do so mathematically.

Sithri wrote:
I'm not sure of this, but wouldn't we see bending of electrons' masses around an object with gravitationally strong amounts of mass with Newton's Law? Perhaps Newton's law and the mass of the electron would predict bending of light around an object if we consider that h, Planck's constant, which has the mass of an electron, which quantifies the photon's energy when multiplied by the photon's frequency, instead of a massless photon, could account for the bending of light around an object?

In that scenario you're equating the energy of the photon with mass which brings us back to GR. You could be correct of course.

There is no equivalence of mass and energy. There is frequency multiplied by angular momentum or h, which makes for energy. If I multiply h by the quantum frequency, I get E=mc^2. However, this doesn't mean that energy is mass just as much as E=mv^2 means it through multiplying by velocity squared. Just because E=mc^2 has c as the velocity doesn't mean that mass=energy. If we are to make mass=energy then we need an equation that literally states E=m, which would involve Making c=1 which a magic trick to do so mathematically.

So how exactly did you intend to use Newton's formulas to explain why pure "energy" (rather than on object of mass) is bent around an object of mass like the sun due to gravity?

Sithri wrote:
I'm not sure of this, but wouldn't we see bending of electrons' masses around an object with gravitationally strong amounts of mass with Newton's Law? Perhaps Newton's law and the mass of the electron would predict bending of light around an object if we consider that h, Planck's constant, which has the mass of an electron, which quantifies the photon's energy when multiplied by the photon's frequency, instead of a massless photon, could account for the bending of light around an object?

In that scenario you're equating the energy of the photon with mass which brings us back to GR. You could be correct of course.

There is no equivalence of mass and energy. There is frequency multiplied by angular momentum or h, which makes for energy. If I multiply h by the quantum frequency, I get E=mc^2. However, this doesn't mean that energy is mass just as much as E=mv^2 means it through multiplying by velocity squared. Just because E=mc^2 has c as the velocity doesn't mean that mass=energy. If we are to make mass=energy then we need an equation that literally states E=m, which would involve Making c=1 which a magic trick to do so mathematically.

So how exactly did you intend to use Newton's formulas to explain why pure "energy" (rather than on object of mass) is bent around an object of mass like the sun due to gravity?

I never said that 'pure energy' is bent around an object. I had said that the photon doesn't have 0 mass. If it did, then by E=mc^2, the mass would be zero, which makes the energy zero! I had said that Planck's constant, which quantifies the energy of the photon when multiplied by frequency, alone contains the mass of the electron. Therefore, the photon itself has the mass of an electron. By this fact, I'm wondering if we can use Newton's Law of Gravity to see how much an electron bends it path in gravity of the sun or any large mass, which would be the same as a photon except that the photon travels at celeritas.

Sithri wrote:
I'm not sure of this, but wouldn't we see bending of electrons' masses around an object with gravitationally strong amounts of mass with Newton's Law? Perhaps Newton's law and the mass of the electron would predict bending of light around an object if we consider that h, Planck's constant, which has the mass of an electron, which quantifies the photon's energy when multiplied by the photon's frequency, instead of a massless photon, could account for the bending of light around an object?

In that scenario you're equating the energy of the photon with mass which brings us back to GR. You could be correct of course.

There is no equivalence of mass and energy. There is frequency multiplied by angular momentum or h, which makes for energy. If I multiply h by the quantum frequency, I get E=mc^2. However, this doesn't mean that energy is mass just as much as E=mv^2 means it through multiplying by velocity squared. Just because E=mc^2 has c as the velocity doesn't mean that mass=energy. If we are to make mass=energy then we need an equation that literally states E=m, which would involve Making c=1 which a magic trick to do so mathematically.

So how exactly did you intend to use Newton's formulas to explain why pure "energy" (rather than on object of mass) is bent around an object of mass like the sun due to gravity?

I never said that 'pure energy' is bent around an object. I had said that the photon doesn't have 0 mass. If it did, then by E=mc^2, the mass would be zero, which makes the energy zero! I had said that Planck's constant, which quantifies the energy of the photon when multiplied by frequency, alone contains the mass of the electron. Therefore, the photon itself has the mass of an electron. By this fact, I'm wondering if we can use Newton's Law of Gravity to see how much an electron bends it path in gravity of the sun or any large mass, which would be the same as a photon except that the photon travels at celeritas.

You'd have a hard time selling the concept that every photon regardless of wavelength has to have the same mass as an electron. You might sell the idea that the highest energy wavelengths approach such masses, but not white light, as Eddington measured with respect to GR's prediction of the bending of light around the sun.

Sithri wrote:
I'm not sure of this, but wouldn't we see bending of electrons' masses around an object with gravitationally strong amounts of mass with Newton's Law? Perhaps Newton's law and the mass of the electron would predict bending of light around an object if we consider that h, Planck's constant, which has the mass of an electron, which quantifies the photon's energy when multiplied by the photon's frequency, instead of a massless photon, could account for the bending of light around an object?

In that scenario you're equating the energy of the photon with mass which brings us back to GR. You could be correct of course.

There is no equivalence of mass and energy. There is frequency multiplied by angular momentum or h, which makes for energy. If I multiply h by the quantum frequency, I get E=mc^2. However, this doesn't mean that energy is mass just as much as E=mv^2 means it through multiplying by velocity squared. Just because E=mc^2 has c as the velocity doesn't mean that mass=energy. If we are to make mass=energy then we need an equation that literally states E=m, which would involve Making c=1 which a magic trick to do so mathematically.

So how exactly did you intend to use Newton's formulas to explain why pure "energy" (rather than on object of mass) is bent around an object of mass like the sun due to gravity?

I never said that 'pure energy' is bent around an object. I had said that the photon doesn't have 0 mass. If it did, then by E=mc^2, the mass would be zero, which makes the energy zero! I had said that Planck's constant, which quantifies the energy of the photon when multiplied by frequency, alone contains the mass of the electron. Therefore, the photon itself has the mass of an electron. By this fact, I'm wondering if we can use Newton's Law of Gravity to see how much an electron bends it path in gravity of the sun or any large mass, which would be the same as a photon except that the photon travels at celeritas.

You'd have a hard time selling the concept that every photon regardless of wavelength has to have the same mass as an electron. You might sell the idea that the highest energy wavelengths approach such masses, but not white light, as Eddington measured with respect to GR's prediction of the bending of light around the sun.

Planck's Constant itself has the mass of an electron multiplied by the compton wavelength squared times the quantum frequency. Multiply any frequency by that and you get the energy of a photon. All colors of light has these dimensions.

Sithri wrote:
Planck's Constant itself has the mass of an electron multiplied by the compton wavelength squared times the quantum frequency. Multiply any frequency by that and you get the energy of a photon. All colors of light has these dimensions.

It seems like each wavelength of photon would have it's own mass in that scenario and should therefore "bend" different amounts around a massive object. Would that be a way to "test" your model?

To improve/cure the current state psychotic physics of expansion, observed red shift must be accounted for. 1) radial from observer; 2) accelerated red shift from farther distance. Extra (assumed unaccounted amt) Tired Light fails on #2. EU/PC fails on #2 as well. LCDM ppl are smart but they need expansion and derivatives to cloth naked/lacked understanding of the cosmo.

Throw GR/SRT space time and or quantum mumbo jumbo into expansion psychosis could cause brain dead!

Meta/symbolic is fine however reified, turned into psychotic.

Actual mechanism must physically be coherent and consistence. Of course, easy enough for a fifth grader to understand.

Sithri wrote:
Planck's Constant itself has the mass of an electron multiplied by the compton wavelength squared times the quantum frequency. Multiply any frequency by that and you get the energy of a photon. All colors of light has these dimensions.

It seems like each wavelength of photon would have it's own mass in that scenario and should therefore "bend" different amounts around a massive object. Would that be a way to "test" your model?

Each wavelength photon has its own energy, while the mass of Planck's Constant remains the same. The bending of light around an object would depend upon its velocity, of which E=mv^2=h*f where the velocity is related to energy and frequency multiplied by h is related to energy.

neilwilkes wrote:Surely "LCDM ppl" - smart or otherwise - fail your criteria that the "Actual mechanism must physically be coherent and consistence. Of course, easy enough for a fifth grader to understand."
Or am I misreading/not understanding your point?

The LCDM model has ever been "physically coherent", and it's certainly never been consistent. According to GR theory, no particle of mass can travel faster than light, but an expansion interpretation of redshift requires a faster than C expansion process. That issue alone *should* have caused the mainstream abandon their claim that redshift is related to expansion in a "physically consistent" and physically coherent model.

Instead, they basically cheated the system by claiming that objects don't actually move, rather the "space" between them expands, but *only* in magical, presumably physically/gravitationally disconnected places such as between galaxy clusters. Then they eventually acknowledged that galaxy clusters are part of galaxy *superclusters*, so apparently "space" only magically expands somewhere in some mythical void between superclusters, yet it manages to do so uniformly in all directions anyway. Then they put together computer models that show that superclusters are aligned along continuous "dark matter filaments", but somehow they keep expanding uniformly in all directions anyway. More physical inconsistency.

About 20 years ago now, their whole expansion interpretation failed a highly relevant and important "test" of their claim about the cause of redshift. Instead of the universe showing signs of slowing down as they originally predicted, it didn't. Again, the *logical* thing to do would be to acknowledge that your expansion interpretation of redshift is a bust, and revisit Hubble's preferred solution to Hubble's Law, but *nooooooooo*. They quite literally invented/dreamed up an ad-hoc new form of energy that is unlike any form of energy that we know of from the lab, and they *drastically* altered their expansion model by liberally adding about 70 percent of this new mythical form of energy to their model. There was nothing physically consistent or coherent about that move at all. The only purpose was to save their expansion interpretation of the redshift phenomenon from falsification, but at the cost of nearly abandoning empirical physical entirely.

Then they made another major departure from reality somewhere along the way related to "dark matter". Originally they acknowledged that their baryonic mass estimates of distant galaxies could easily be missing ordinary forms of matter. Then, by some unknown miracle, they began *assuming* that their baryonic mass estimates *must be* correct, so they turned that missing matter into an exotic new form of matter and they pretty much abandoned empirical physics entirely. Again, that subjective choice was not consistent with anything related to actual known science.

Now we find out that even their introduction of 70 percent metaphysical nonsense still doesn't make their theory compatible with distant quasar observations. That revelation is a second major bust/fail for the expansion interpretation of redshift in the last two decades, but do you see any hint of them revisiting Hubble's *preferred* explanation of redshift? Hell no! They keep unethically claiming to the public that Hubble "proved" that the universe is expanding even though Hubble personally didn't believe that himself. They unethically write about a concept that Alfven called "pseudoscience' while misusing his math to model the behaviors of plasma which has already been reduced to only about 5 percent of their model anyway.

Their model is now 100 percent physically inconsistent with empirical physics. And to top it all off, somewhere along the way they developed an electrophobic view of plasma physics to boot. Everything they do has been physically inconsistent with empirical physics.

About the only thing that's consistent about the LCDM model, is their "pledge of allegiance" to their expansion interpretation of redshift, even though we know for a fact that light transfers some of it's momentum to plasma in the lab as it traverses a plasma medium. They literally have to treat plasma in space as being completely and totally different than plasma in a lab. Their magical form of imaginary space plasma must be 100 percent transparent to inelastic scattering processes, unlike ordinary plasma in the lab.

In short, the universe according to the LCMD model has to be 100 percent different from, and 100 percent *inconsistent* with, anything that we experience or observe in labs on Earth. The LCDM model is about as physically inconsistent with known physics as it can possibly get. It's 95 percent metaphysical nonsense combined with 5 percent pseudoscience, and requires the use of magical transparent plasma no less. The LCDM model of cosmology is completely detached from physical reality. That's about the only thing that's "consistent" about it.

IMO that quasar study is a death blow to the LCDM claim that redshift is related to expansion. That redshift assumption has *never* been useful at predicting high redshift observations in the first place. We're seeing "mature" galaxies where none should exist. We're seeing massive quasars which their model fails to predict or explain. Now we're seeing that their model is physically inconsistent with redshift patterns at larger redshifts. The LCDM model has failed virtually every so called "test" possible, yet astronomers *refuse* to reconsider their core assumption that redshift is related to expansion in spite of overwhelming evidence that redshift has nothing to do with expansion.

The LCDM model is a *dismal* failure. It has no useful predictive value because every new high redshift observations is a huge 'surprise' to astronomers. It's also failed every lab test to date. No new observation or experimental result ever fits their expansion interpretation of redshift. The bizarre rationalizations that they use to excuse that fact are just getting more bizarre and less believable every single day. Next they'll dream up a new form of exotic "dark energy" to try to plug up the massive holes of their sinking ship. Big bang theory is utter metaphysical nonsense that is 100 percent detached from empirical physics and physical reality. None of it actually works in the lab, and it's core assumption actually defies what does work in the lab, namely the loss of photon momentum to a plasma medium as light passes through plasma in the lab.

Astronomers today are actually far worse, and more detached from reality than Ptolemaic astronomers of thousands of years ago who were peddling epicycles to save their models. The metaphysical nonsense of the LCDM model make even epicycles look like "good science" by comparison.

Keep in mind that while the LCMD model doesn't require us to be in a special location, it absolutely does require us to live in a very special and unique period of cosmological time. It also violates the Copernican principle with respect to time as badly as Ptolemaic forms of astronomy violated that principle with respect to location. In a few trillion years according to the LCDM model intelligent forms of life would end up living in a visually barren night sky, only being able to observe the stars in their own galaxy and galaxies in their own local supercluster and they would be completely oblivious to redshift entirely, and have no evidence of expansion.

LCMD is simply an atrocious cosmology model. It's completely detached from empirical physics and physical reality. It's akin to a bad dogmatic religion, not unlike Scientology. The more you look under the hood, the worse it gets, the more unfalsiable dogma it requires, and the more it fails every important test. The only thing it's actually good for is to bilk an unsuspecting public out of billions of dollars, but apparently that's all that professional astronomers actually care about in 2019. Empirical physics and science be damned.